the federal trade commission talks about an ftc study on credit reports, which finds that by% of participant had serious errors on them. washington journal is next. ♪ >> the house of representatives voted to block pay raise for federal employees. it would save $11 billion. a hearing on the near future on potential threats asteroid's posed to earth. and do not forget our first lady's series that kicks off on monday. it will take a look at a private lives of the first ladies. you can find out more by going to our website at c-span.org off.

in chicago yesterday president obama talked about his gun control proposal. do you think congress should consider a proposal and vote? be prepared to tell us why or why not. here are the numbers. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3880 for democrats. you can always send us e-mail. "the chicago tribune" picked up the story, talking about a wide range of issues. gun violence is the main topic of the speech. the reporter says --

part of the speeches today look to congress and what they should do. here is what he had to say. gu[video clip] >> ivory -- i recognize not everybody has to agree with our issues. different from upstate and downstate illinois. these proposals deserve a vote in congress. they deserve a vote.

[applause] and i want to thank those members of congress who are working together in a serious way to try to address this issue. host: playing off of that repeated phrase, that is the question we propose to you, whether you think they deserve a vote. whether you do or don't, you could call on the lines that represent you. we have put this on twitter as well. facebook 2. we had about 20 responses when we first started the program. here are a couple of them to get your sense of what is going on. christopher says they do deserve

a vote. duane clem as this, "what about the over 30 budget bills that the house has passed?" we are asking you if they deserve a vote or not. we want to get your opinions. the numbers will stay on the screen. they all start with 8202 area code. -- with a 202 area code. you can reach out to us on a variety of social media. a twitter response -- gun control deserves an up or down vote.

"national journal" did a side by side story looking at violence in chicago. they say that president obama traveled back to chicago and a city on track to become of the murder capital of the united states -- again that is "the national journal". this shows the line graph from january 12 -- january 2012 if -- go by the fbi's estimates

at a time approaching two hundred 50. that is followed by new york, baltimore, and philadelphia. detroit and los angeles being charted there as well. your thoughts for the next 40 minutes. mark on the democrats' line, what do you think? caller: i agree with the second amendment that we all have the right to bear arms. when it comes to these assault weapons, there are too many shootings with the schools. it has become almost an every day thing. it is creating a panic. i know certain areas are worse than others.

the government has a compelling interest to address this. they need to try to put rules on the table, not to take away the second amendment, but to enforce more rules to negate these happenings. host: the president several times reiterating that the proposal deserves a vote. what he think? caller: i agree. congress is our lawmakers. they put things in place and have to have a vote on this. i agree it should come to that. i believe in the second amendment. we have to make concessions here. host: do you think that congress will take up the votes and what the president is proposing? what do you ultimately think will, of that? caller: i think it will come to a decision.

it has become very imperative to do something about it. at this time i think they are going to come to a fair decision across the board, how to address this and put rules in place that we have to negate thkis from happening. host: jim from twitter says this -- "vote on it and move it down, and then move onto something important." we go to ralph on the democrat'' line. caller: i agree with the automatic weapons. people do not need automatic weapons to hunt with. i think we should take them off of the streets. host: talk about congress's role, then tweet whether a vote should be taken on these

proposals and why or why not. caller: i think they should take a vote on it. as far as voting, they should vote against the automatic weapons. they should vote to cut down on crime, as well as getting the automatic weapons off of the street. as far as fighting the crime and automatic weapons, why doesn't the president use those troops from afghanistan to fight crime? the best way to do that is take the gangs off the street and get the weapons back from the gangs. host: that is ralph from mansfield, ohio. you can choose a line that best represents you on the president

calling for his proposal yesterday -- looking at them and asking congress several times to take a vote on that. choose the number that best represents you on the screen. you can also send us comments on twitter and facebook. joseph adding that, "i thought the second amendment to the constitution was already ratified by the nation?" give us a call or put a thought on facebook. staten island new york, republican line, dennis, co- head. caller: as far as the vote, i think it should come up for a vote. i am kind ambiguous about this. the second amendment says the

right to bear arms -- really it says "the right to bear arms, and the government is not to interfere with it." the founding fathers put that into the constitution for just in case we get a president who becomes a tyrant. no matter how far-fetched you may think that is. host: as far as what congress should do about president's proposals, what would you think caller: they should do i do not mind them taking a vote. host: on what specifically?

caller: on gun control. host: peter joins us from tucson, arizona. caller: i think they should vote it down. all those places you showed with gun violence, they all have gun- control laws. the gun-control laws are not the ways to do it. it is the gangs and a legal people with the guns that are creating the problems. what are we going to do with the local citizens that have a semi- automatic handgun with a 13- round magazine? are they going to confiscate the magazines? the guy in ohio was talking

about automatic weapons, automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930's. assault weapons and pistol grips, -- host: the house said the proposals included extended background checks and bans on certain semiautomatic weapons and high capacity clips. that was some of the things he advocated for yet today when he told an audience in chicago that his proposals deserve a vote. we are asking you about that vote. columbus, georgia, republican line. caller: 1 of your callers said automatic weapons should be illegal.

automatic weapons are illegal. president obama is using troops coming back from afghanistan to enforce laws. he could use a drone if he declared them enemies of the state. the amendment itself enforcing. "--shall not be infringed." it shouldn't even be a vote. president obama is not preserving or protecting the constitution. i am actually an officer in the military. my job is to support and defend the constitution. if he keeps going the way he is going he is going to destroy this country more than he already has. it can get much worse. host: you seem nonchalant about the voting on it considering

what he said before. why is that? caller: what president obama is doing is destroying the country. it is quite likely this would be one of the things that americans would raise up in the way we can even imagine. the benghazi disaster, the second amendment was made to stop things like this. host: democrats line, but morning. -- good morning. caller: i think the shooting in newtown means it deserves a vote. the congress voted 3 times to repeal the health care law. this is something that would help americans.

they need to take time and give a vote to the people the second ammendment is not in danger. no one needs a 30-round magazine. universal checks is nothing, but it helps. host: a vote should take place, that is what you are saying. caller: exactly. host: what do you think of the prospect of the house or senate taking up these kinds of votes? caller: i think they would -- they should. if they are worrying about re-

elected they should be getting out anyway. president obama is just one person. he cannot make the law. congress, the senate, they need to get to work. host: this is all of twitter -- the proposal includes bans on semiautomatic weapons and it also includes bans on high capacity clips. the president spoke on new town, with our caller brought up. he talked about it yesterday. he also talked about chicago and its gun violence. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> two months ago america mourned 26 innocent first

graders and their educators in new town. today i had the high honor of giving the highest civilian award i can give to the families of the educators who had been killed in newtown. there was something profound and uniquely heartbreaking and tragic about a group of 6-year- olds being killed. last year there were 443 murders in the streets of the district. 65 of those victims were 18 and under. that is the equivalent of a newtown every 4 months. host: might on our question

about the proposals, he says "let us have a separate up and down vote on assault weapons ban and background checks. if you purchase a gun, you should register at." independent line, minnesota. good morning. caller: i do not think this vote is needed. i think we need to fix other things in this country. the second amendment handles this. any law that should be put on the books -- the citizens of this country that follow the .aws aren't a problem i think we are spinning our wheels. i would like to see attention on the economy. we are failing hugely there. host: allison, west virginia,

brian is on the line. caller: i think it is time people take responsibility. the gun is harmless while it sits in your cabinet. when you push people, you get an unstable amount of people out here. they need to be held accountable. it is not the gun's problem. that is our second amendment right. it should not be up to any body in politics to take away something that was given to us. host: what are your thoughts on the votes on the specific measures? caller: take care of the criminals. investigate these people that are unstable. why should the politicians vote

-- let us vote in. let us vote on it and see where its lace. host: that is just one of the ways to contribute to the conversation. also from the lead story in, "the chicago tribune." and ex aldermen in chicago committed tax fraud --

"the washington post," has a story on its front page. saying --

new jersey, democrats line, talking about president's gun proposal and if they deserve a vote in congress. caller: absolutely they deserve it. unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who should not have a license to use a gun. there are some people who use it for hunting and sport. that is one thing. i think a universal background check, not just when they purchased the gun, i am in the health profession. in order for us to keep our license we have to get a background check every two years. we redo our license and see if we have any attack of mental illness or assault charges. that is important to do. you may get that license and three months later you are

getting charges for something. they will not take the gun away. they just blow that off. i am saying in general they need to crack down on this stuff. there are weapons that people do use that are home made. they cannot find them. i do not like violence, i think people who hurt people need a lot of help. as for throwing them in jail, some people learn from it and some people do not. the ones that do not are the ones you have to watch. host: from "the baltimore sun," --

tom from alabama, thank you for holding on. you are on our republican line. caller: first i would like to say that i am also a an officer in the military. the vote should be rectifying the constitution. as it stands it is quite clear that federal government does not have the power to make these changes. any vote would be unconstitutional. there is a ratification process that exists. congress should feel free to use it if they feel the need to restrict firearms. others may have mentioned that

in no way were the founders ever concerned with -- they were concerned with their ability to resist. semi-automatic weapons that congress are thinking about weapon -- are thinking about banning, these are the exact weapons. host: that was tom in alabama. this is jon in manassas, virginia on our independent line. good morning. caller: i just wanted to bring up that in mexico guns are banned. guns are banned in chicago and new york, also. this problem is not -- is that we are not enforcing the laws as we have -- as we should have.

this is all just a thought. we have close to 23,000 gun laws on the books right now. we just need to enforce them, give the police the power and strength to go after criminals and keep them in jail. if you ban all of the guns, the criminals are still going to guess at the guns. they are going to make homemade weapons. that is ridiculous. we really need to enforce our law. the second amendment was about protection from tyranny, not about hunting. host: a lot of stories deal with the asteroid over russia. this is the announcement of a hearing taking a look at asteroids. it is from the house science, space and technology committee.

according to chairman of lamar smith -- this morning a smaller meteorite hit a russian city injuring hundreds. it will invest in a future hearing in the house of representatives. democrats line. caller: i just want to say that many conservatives have been saying for the last couple of years that they are against spending. we have to cut back spending. all of a sudden they say we should put an armed guard in every school, turning them into

fortresses. if you look at how many schools there are, there are a hundred thousand fund -- 100,000 public schools. that includes just high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools. i will let you do the math on how much it will cost to turn every school into a fortress. against spending. at the drop of a hat they are ready to spend all of the money to turn schools into fortresses and they want to handguns to teachers or janitors or bring our guards into schools. it is just ridiculous.

host: president obama was in chicago yesterday. he said several times that the proposals deserve a vote. we are asking on -- we are asking your opinion. if you want to comment on the phone, the numbers -- a couple of stores in "the washington post" this morning, talking about health care --

the program was a temporary bridge for the uninsured, but it was supposed to last until 2014. -- on the front page, many young healthy americans could see a jump in their health insurance costs --

back to our discussion about the present cost done proposals. north carolina, independent line, danny. thank you for waiting. caller: i have a little rifle. if i use it for target practice, it is a target rifle. if i used to procure feud, it is a hunting rifle. is it called an assault? that is the only definition of that term. i do not understand how they called the smart and rifles

assault weapons. -- call these modern rifles assault weapons. host: certain types of automatic weapons, background checks, magazine clips, what do you think about that? caller: obama never did mention the lady from texas whose mom and dad was killed in the restaurant. he did not even mention her. i am sorry for that. she had a weapon, it was in the car. the restaurant would not allow her to bring that into the restaurant. off nobody knew it was there but her. she could have protected people in that restaurant she could have saved many lives. host: from twitter -- a photo in the paper this

morning, this was released over concerns of his health. the accompanying story says that despite the photos, the number of reoccurrence his answer trees that chavez has had to endured increasingly suggests he will not be able to make a full cup -- a move for recovery. republican line. caller: i am against the boat. we have the second amendment. what are we supposed to do if somebody -- when the economy collapses and we have 30 people that will break into my home or somebody else's home.

is obama going to have his secret service with semi automatics? host: can i ask you why did it said an amendment would be covered by these proposals and a new administration? caller: we have a tyrannical government. what are we supposed to do if they are going to come after us. they are coming after to kill thehose of use that are sick or elderly. they want to euthanize us later in life. or we can save money in medical. just look at the way they are going. china owns us. host: and that relates to gun policy how? caller: we have to be able to

protect ourselves. how are we supposed to go out and protect ourselves if we are not able to use the guns and we have chinese coming at us with their weapons -- host: this is susan from texas on the democrats' line. caller: the guy that called in about the amendment -- a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. but the history is that we did not have a standing army before the revelation nor for many years thereafter.

the army was dependent on individuals having guns and coming out in times of need to fight the british, not our own government. i am a gun owner. i believe in gun ownership. but the signers of the constitution had no concept of what would later be invented. it is just insanity, the things that are being said about this. lies are being put into people's mouths. the russians are going to come into a desk, we need to protect ourselves with a semi-automatic rifle? yap, right.

host: birmingham, gina, hello. caller: first-time caller. i want everyone to give a hug to our president and support him. if we all support and rally together, maybe things will be better off than tearing things apart. host: we are talking about policies on gun-control. he is saying they deserve a vote. do you think they deserve a vote? caller: we all need to have a vote. everybody has a chance and the free will and choice. do not ask and do not tell. i am sure obama has tightened up guns and shot himself -- and

shop and himself. it is nobody's business. keep things more secretive. we have to take care of ourselves. host: this is from twitter -- monday is president's day. we are going to launch a new series taking a look at the first ladies of the white house. we called the it is"first lady's: influence and image," and it examines the lives of the first ladies, specifically their years in the white house. each episode of the series lasts about 90 minutes. we will talk to historians, we look at some of the places they lived.

that series kicks off on monday. if you want to find out more, use of the website just a second ago. go to our website at c-span.org. and join us monday at 9:00 p.m. for the launch. from pennsylvania, john on the republican line. caller: i do believe they should have the vote. i believe all 535 representatives and senators should vote that there should be a clarification for what the second amendment stands for. do they believe that the citizens have a right to own weapons should their government get out of control? that should be the vote. we should give all 535 congressmen and executive to vote whether or not they believe that is in the constitution. citizen should be able to fight a tyrannical government should they get out of control.

thank you a lot. host: roger from virginia beach on the democrats' line. how are you doing? caller: good. i believe they should have been up-down vote. i believe names should be attached to how you feel about gun legislation, how you feel about these high-capacity magazines, these assault weapons. there have to be some sanity. we need to see who supports what. host: 4 you it is not what is being voted on but getting people on record. caller: get them on record and let our country see where our people stand. one of the callers did point out that we have elected officials who seem to be more concerned about getting greek-elected than

actually representing the people were sent to represent in the first place. this should be about the people. host: what you think about president's proposals on guns? caller: i do not think this concern -- i did not think they interfere with the second amendment. i think it enhances the second amendment. my belief is you should have a right to own a weapon to defend yourself. what my concern is -- being extreme about it, if we cannot get some kind of reasonable approach, it kind of negates our ability to do what is right when it comes to weapons. look at the sacrifices that has been made. let us try to do something that is more reasonable when it comes to opening weapons -- to owning weapons. host: "the wall street journal,"

rights -- william, good morning. this is from louisville, ky on the independent line.

caller: let me remind that prohibition did not stop people from getting a drink. to assume criminals and organized crime purchase their guns and guns shows is ridiculous. they buy them out of gun drops in warehouses and cars. as far as high magazines, a black market will give us 20,000 al capone's in every city. you cannot control something like that. it would take 100 years to get rid of all of the guns and act -- all of the guns and magazines that exist now. it is ridiculous. there is no way to stop it. >> baltimore, republican line.

caller: there is nothing wrong with registering a gun. you register everything. registering a gun just makes common sense. every one of the work -- every one of the murders has something to do with mental health. i am sure we can make a link between the reduction in mental- health funding that has occurred in this country. i am sure you will see some kind of link between the increase of these people with mental problems going out and killing children. to blame this on the president, it is kind of a racist thing they are going through. if the same conversation --

host: "the wall street journal" has a story looking at the red state democrats in the senate. you can read more in "the wall street journal," this morning. one more call on the independent line. caller: i think this is one big

old smoke screen that the presidential administration is going through because they aren't able to create jobs. i have a much bigger question about the president using drones to kill american citizens with out any type of due process overseas. during times of trouble our forefathers wanted us to embrace the constitution, not ignore it. there is a simple litmus test you can use to figure out what the four fathers had in mind with the second amendment. this is an area had muskets. that was a balance. to lobby and go ahead and take those children and put them out there on the super bowl to sing and dance in front of this huge crowd after they have gone through such a traumatic event is just deplorable.

the president should be condemned for that. he would not have his children out there in such an event if they were put through such a dramatic event. host: that is the last call we will take on this topic. with the president's announcement this week that the united states will have a number of troops in afghanistan return. we will talk to carnot cedric leighton. later on, the president put out several education proposals. alyson klein of "education week" will explain the details. we will go to reach it this took place on december 14 of last year. here is a little bit of what happened at that ceremony. [video clip] >> when these teachers showed up

for work at sandy hook elementary, the expected a day like any other. doing what is right for their kids, spending a chilly morning in classrooms, they had no idea that evil was about to strike. when it did take could have taken shelter, they could have focused on their own safety and well-being. but they didn't. they give their lives to protect the precious children in their care. they give all they had for the most innocent and helpless of us. that is what we honor today. the selfless spirit, the inspiring actions of extraordinary americans.

>> today, booktv is in savannah, georgia. starting at 10:15 eastern with al gore on the future. at 1:30, cheif correspond jake tapper on the war in afghanistan. and at 4:00, pulitzer prize- winning historian garry wills. the savannah book festival, today on c-span to. >> washington journal continues. host: it was turning the state of the union the president obama discussed the need and his plans for troops in afghanistan, talking specifically at a

drawdown of troop numbers. here is what he had to stay about it at the state of the union. [video clip] >> to dite we celebrate the troops that sacrifice every day to protect us. because of them we can say with confidence that america will complete its mission in afghanistan and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al qaeda. [applause] already we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women. this spring, our forces will move into a support role while afghan security forces take the lead. tonight i can announce that over the next year another 34,000 american troops will come home

from afghanistan. this drawdown will continue and by the end of next year our war in afghanistan will be over. [applause] >> beyond 2014, america's commitment to a unified and sovereign afghanistan will indore. but the nature of our commitment will change. we are negotiating an agreement with the afghanistan government that focuses on two missions, training and equipping it afghan forces so the country does not slip into chaos, and counter- terrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al qaeda. host: joining us for this discussion is colonel cedric leighton.

he served from 2005 to 2009. welcome. can you analyze what the president proposes as far as the future of troops in afghanistan. guest: 34,000 troops coming home early and you are looking at reductions in total over the next two years, all of our 66,000 u.s. troops currently in afghanistan -- we are leaving that country. for afghanistan that means there is going to be some significant shortfalls in combat capability. they are relying on the united states for all kinds of things. not only up until recently for being the primary fighting mechanism for the afghans, but also from a logistical standpoint and from an intelligence standpoint, we provide the bulk of support. that also includes air lifting for their troops to get a point of conflict where they need to engage with the enemy. host: as far as picking up after we leave? caller: they are not completely

prepared. they have the afghan national come -- the afghan national police that is getting pretty good at their primary task of going after caliban cells. the other problem of this is an uneven prepared this. there are significant problems with training the afghan army. there are significant problems with training the afghan police. there is going to be some significant drawbacks to the drawdown announced by the president. host: "the new york times" talks about those problems -- guest: yes, and that is

symptomatic of the greater problem with the afghan military. all militaries are far less logistically prepared than the u.s. military. one of our greatest strengths is the fact that we have a tremendous logistical supply chain that works incredibly well. the other strength we have is in the intelligence arena. that aside, the afghan forces have a great fighting spirit. the problem is that they do -- that they are a conscript army. because of that there are some significant issues between their stated readiness and their actual readiness. a huge amount is put into them. billions of dollars. there are lots of ways of countering that. in essence what we are talking about is several billion dollars

every year that go into -- tens of billions every year. a huge investment that borders on the $50 billion to $60 billion realm in the course of 10 years. that is the significant problem that we are not really getting. host: if those problems exists, what is their ability to resist al qaeda forces? what does that mean for security? guest: this is an ideological battle -- ideological battle. it is a capability that is very difficult to quantify. there is a great deal of what we call -- in the military that plays a large role in the way we actually focus our forces and ability to get the job done.

afghan units, individual afghan units, have a great deal of it as well as loyalty to their commanders, but not necessarily to the central afghan state out of kabul. because of that there are going to be significant problems with their ability to carry forward. they are not ready at all to do that job at this time. host: to the influence al qaeda to turn? guest: they could because they know the americans are leaving. each individual afghan is going to make choices of allegiance. those choices of allegiance are going to depend on their personal circumstances, their experiences with the americans, and they are going to depend on the personal safety of themselves and their family members. because the top man is such a pervasive influence in afghanistan and certain parts of afghanistan, it is going to be exceedingly difficult for members of the afghan armed forces to maintain loyalty to

the central government in kabul. host: drawdown in afghanistan, that is our topic. if you want ask questions for our guest, here is how you can do so. we set aside a special line if you have served in afghanistan. if you want to give us your thoughts specifically on what is going down, 202-585-3883 is the number you can call. 18,500 troops by january 2014. talk about those numbers in comparison to what we have seen and what it's going to be the day today for these guys. guest: the afghan war american dies? host: american. guest: you are going to end up

in a situation where you have to do a lot more. all of the things you relied on others to do, you are going to have to do yourself. if you are a deployed soldier at the forefront in afghanistan and you are now in a unit or the logistics is less, the intelligence support may be less, other support services are less and, you are going to have to be more self-sufficient. you are going to have to also depend on your core unit as opposed to other support units. having said that, the other thing that is happening is american bourses are beginning to take a backseat to afghan forces. afghan for -- afghan forces are engaged in a lot of combat missions that are going on right now. they are leading many security

operations out there. the face is a little bit different than it was a few years ago. it is certainly different than the days of the afghan insurgency and we had over 100,000 u.s. troops alone in the country. the afghan surge has been cut in half over the past year. we added that figure with the figures coming up. in essence, the presence of the u.s. is rapidly approaching zero on a graph line. that is what we're looking at right now. it is a lot of extra work for the folks that remain. host: our guest is served until 2009, and works in the pentagon. our first call, on the republican line. caller: my daughter serves in the marine corps. i'm very proud of my daughter.

if we take and put our people out of afghanistan, what is going to prevent these people from going back over -- coming back over to our country, and a glowing us up again? we may have gotten rid of osama bin laden. what about everybody else? we have to protect our people, whether it is in afghanistan, africa, or wherever. we cannot allow our people totally out of this country just because president obama says, they are muslims, they are my fellow men, my fellow religion, i want our people out of there. that is not right. i come over to our country and try to kill us. we need to stay over there and fight for our freedom. host: you bring up interesting points. basic idea we have in this country is that we get into wars, but we very rapidly lose

the ability to support those wars, political perspective. we saw what happened in vietnam. if desert storm last longer, we would have seen the same thing there. we know what happened with iraqi freedom. you're looking at a nation that can go in, with a superb military capability, which her daughter is a part of, and it can make a lot of differences, but the problem you have is that you have a political situation where we cannot sustain a long- term deployment, 12-13 years in afghanistan over the long term. it has become america's longest war. economically, you look at how that works. the big problem that i have with the drawdown is perhaps related to what your saying -- you have to be very careful about what to tell the enemy. you have to have a negotiating

position that gets you from the strength and allows you to actually control what happens diplomatically. the final solution to afghanistan, if there is such a thing, will have to be diplomatic. it cannot be a military solution. although the military has to play a significant part in that effort. what you're looking at is a situation in which we have to draw down anyways. we were going to do it under the bush administration. the problem is that we have revealed how we are going to do it and when we are going to do it. it is good for political leaders, the commander in chief, to have plans and goals in terms of the time -- in terms of a timetable. it is very bad to reveal that in total to our adversaries. in this case, it is the taliban. to get to your point about afghanistan being a base for al qaeda, it has been the goal of the administration to eliminate afghanistan as a base for al

qaeda and similar elements. it remains to be seen if they can do that. a drawdown will make it more difficult for us to accomplish that in the long run. host: a couple comments on twitter, asking questions about positive accomplishments. guest: the surge was designed to replicate what happened in iraq. in iraq, you had a situation with the anbar awakening. you had the situation, being in, using local forces in order to gain the upper hand against the extremists, whether they were affiliated with al qaeda or were local sympathizers with saddam hussein. that basically worked from a military perspective. when you go to afghanistan, the time when general petraeus became the commander, the attempt was made to replicate what happened.

the results were mixed. you had similar afghan units in several provinces that have been turned into a pretty decent area of success for our research efforts. the problem is we pulled the main forces out and we were not able to capitalize on the gains that we had. what ends up happening is that you end up having a situation where in the daytime, u.s. and coalition forces actually control the area or province, but at night, he find the enemy comes back, the taliban comes back and controls all of the population. the results are mixed. we pulled out too soon. host: the democrats line, from michigan. henry? caller: thank you, colonel, for your service.

i would like to say that while i am glad our troops are coming home, i do say this with a great trepidation, because i have listened all morning to a lot of paranoia callers who talk about posse comitatus. they talk about how president obama has ruined the country, when, in fact, these paranoid, delusional people who voted for george w. bush twice -- george w. bush ruined this country. my concern is that you're bringing these troops home to what? a divided country, to be influenced by paranoid people like the woman from kentucky who calls president obama a muslim, wayne lapierre who says black

people will loot and riot, so everybody needs guns -- host: on guns? caller: when we get these people home and they do not have jobs because congress is blocking jobs, and they have ptsd, and we have all these problems in this country, i am wondering, should these people have access to 30- round assault weapons? guest: henry, thank you for your call and comments. the basic idea -- you're touching on issues like gun control and many other different things. the question is, can our people come back from afghanistan and have an gainful employment when they come back? the answer has to be, the nation has to do it in such a way that the answer must be yes. the reality of the situation is that unfortunately for many

veterans, their unemployment rate is many -- is much higher than it should be, particularly in comparison to their civilian peers. this is a wake-up call for employers to take a look and see what they can do to help veterans that have so valiantly fought for our country in afghanistan and iraq, help them achieve their personal goals, whether it is saying in the service and serving longer, or coming out and entering the civilian workforce. that becomes a major social question for our country, for the president, for congress to answer and to do it in a way that is just incredible to veterans and their service. host: james parker says -- are there comparisons to be made when when -- when russia left afghanistan? guest: there are. when we first went into

afghanistan, it was clear there was a significant difference between the way american forces conducted themselves in afghanistan and with the russians did. james brings up interesting points because the biggest comparison is related to the length of time that both the russian forces or soviet forces and the american forces have stayed in afghanistan -- is pretty similar. the difference is in the way forces have conducted themselves. yes, there have been isolated incidents of american forces doing very bad things in afghanistan. they have been dealt with. they have been dealt with quickly. in the case of russians, that was not the case. it was common to practice atrocities. it was common to do things against the afghan population, decimating the afghan population that oppose the russian presence and the central government russians supported. what you're dealing with there is a situation in which the big analogy is length of time and

the fact that afghans do not like a foreign occupier, no matter what kind of foreign occupier it is. i'm afraid he is right. the afghans will probably revert back to the type of society that they had before 2001 and before we enter the country. host: david from ohio on the independent line. caller: i appreciate your service, and i wanted to tell you or ask the question -- you think it is good policy to go into a country where they have such a different culture in different government and try to install a new government, when the cultures are so completely different, and then try to make those, the populace of the country change over to something like a democracy? the thing that is a valid for a

policy? guest: it depends on where you go. the way in which we handled europe after world war ii and japan after world war ii, those experiences were very successful. the marshall plan in europe that raise the level of economic well being for all of that portion of the continent -- that was a big deal. it worked culturally. in afghanistan and other countries, will be significant differences, culturally, significant differences, in terms of educational preparedness and societal prepared ness, to handle institutions we like, to put a jeffersonian democracy and give it an imprint that works for a place like afghanistan -- that is very difficult to do. we have found that it is practically impossible to do on a nationwide basis. there are afghan institutions that work on a somewhat democratic basis. there are other aspects of afghan society and culture that

not quite fit with our world view. it becomes difficult for us to impose our way on a culture that is thousands of years old. i believed this forces us to recognize that and say, you go into a country and do the things that are needed to do after 9/11, you have to go in with a plan and you will not change a culture that has been there for so long. you have to go in, take care of business, from a military standpoint, eliminate the threats to you, and provide institutions that will allow that government to do what it needs to do to survive in a way that is at least not an enemy of us, is not antithetical to u.s. interests. it is a difficult exercise. afghanistan has been a great laboratory for us to learn, to understand how this works.

unfortunately, they are not able, in my opinion, to take the imprint we have given and move it forward in a way that we would be completely satisfied with. there may be aspects they can do, and in some respects, they are working hard at that in certain areas. in other areas, they are reverting back to the role of the taliban. that is dangerous. host: leon panetta talked about the afghans role after the u.s. operation. he talked about how the afghans were on track to take over in 2014. i want to show you a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> we agreed in 2010 and a firm in chicago last year that afghanistan will assume full responsibility for security by the end of 2014. we are well on track for that goal. we will maintain a long-term commitment to afghanistan, including through the continued

training and equipment of afghan forces and counter-terrorism operations against al qaeda and their affiliates. host: your thoughts on his perspective? guest: the effort that has been put into it, i cannot blame him for what he has said. secretary panetta has done a great job in being a story of the pentagon. the fact of the matter is, when you look at afghanistan, the readiness of the culture to actually move things forward in a way that is commensurate with u.s. interests, we're not there yet. we even have difficulties with the current government of hamid karzai in the couple -- in kabul. his interests are not congruent with our interests -- it is a stretch to say that they are going to take over and do things in a way that will be completely parallel to our interests. having said that, when you look at the tactical aspects, the actual way in which each of the

afghan alamance, military elements, what you find is that a significant portion of the afghan military actually has real problems fielding all of their forces. they are -- you can make an analogy between their forces and what happened to the u.s. continental force in the american revolution, in the sense they were seasonal soldiers. if it was cropp time, or harvesting time, a lot of soldiers disappeared to take care of those duties. in the afghan situation, it is similar. in many cases, there is a high absentee rate. it was much worse a few years ago. you had a high id -- the high absentee rate. you had a high rate of illiteracy, 28.1% of the population being illiterate. a huge challenge in training and

deploying the sophisticated weapons systems -- these are the kinds of things that you're dealing with. i would beg to differ all little bit from secretary panetta in saying they're not completely already, but to say that they are on track and will be the primary force that is going to take afghanistan forward in a securities cents after 2014 -- i think that is a bit premature. guest: what happens when hamid karzai is not president anymore? -- host: what happens when hamid karzai is not present any more? guest: there are two possibilities. one is that afghanistan descends into warlord-led districts. in this was the pre-9/11 or you had the number alliance and posh thune alamance -- pasthun

alliance, fighting for different areas of afghanistan against the central government in kabul. that split could also be accentuated when the americans leave. the taliban could take over completely. i think they would face resistance, especially by the forces that make up the northern alliance in the past. because of those differences, and fortunately for say a lot of conflict within afghanistan, once and nato and the american forces leave the country, there will be more conflict, sectarian strife, more violence, and i find it will be very hard to believe the central government, as it is configured in kabul, can pull all that together and create a peaceful state.

host: if you served in afghanistan, and you want to weigh in, here is your number -- ron from florida, on our republican line. caller: good morning. i served in vietnam, and we did not accomplish nothing there. we left him all of our equipment there for the north vietnamese used. we did not destroy it. that is not a point -- a point is that we should not be in afghanistan to start with. securityk about our and grenada. those were our college students over there when we had a conflict with castro. another thing is, let's call them all out because there will be wars there for thousands and thousands of years. interests in our

the united states. we know where al qaeda operates. let's make sure that they get searched before they can even come into the u.s. guest: when you look at what happens in the world, and your service in vietnam, there were a lot of different things that were mismanaged in vietnam. that is one of the things we used to change the way armed forces were structured today. a lot of the changes were a result of the problems we face in vietnam. a lot of changes not visible to the public are a result of what happened in iraq and afghanistan, but when you look at the afghan situation, it does make sense to be able to have a strike force that can go in and take care of problems that come from a particular country. in the case of 9/11, we had a

situation where the taliban supported al qaeda, was host to al qaeda, and al qaeda used it as a base to mount attacks against the united states. it was not a base in the way that we understand it. it was still a safe haven for them, were to plan, to get ready for the attacks on 9/11. eni to have capabilities that eliminate those threats. -- you need to have capabilities that eliminate those threats. you need to be able to put boots on the ground and understand from a direct impression of what is going on in countries all over the world. it means working with them. sometimes you have to go in and you have to take care of the threats to you. you also have to understand, we have to understand, when to withdraw. it becomes very important to withdraw at the right moment and not overstay your welcome or

overstate the tactical and strategic usefulness of your presence. if we have had a strategic foresight to look at both afghanistan and iraq as counterweights to iran, the story might be a little bit different. we have not released a that strategic leverage and that foresight to go in and make an argument to balance off the iranian influence in both the countries. i am afraid that is going to be another issue we will contend with. i do not see us withdrawing too much from our foreign engagements. we have to be very careful that we understand the areas we go into. host: frank, on the democrats' line. caller:, very much for c-span and for taking my call. the previous caller talked about being of vietnam veteran -- i am too.

allot of the equipment they use is the same as our equipment in vietnam. a lot of these guys -- is awful hard to get benefits from the veterans administration. the burden is too high on the veterans themselves after their service, ptsd, etcetera. i will take my question off the air. thank you once again for taking my call. you have a blessed day. guest: thank you for your service. we appreciate your sacrifice and your willingness to help all the

veterans out there. this is a problem that has certainly come up in public discussions both in congress and the executive branch, being able to help veterans work their way through the democracy of the veterans and ministration and other benefits that they have spurned because of their service that becomes a huge deal, and with sequestration looming, in terms of the federal government's budget, it will be an even greater challenge to make sure veterans debt the benefits they have earned and they are owed by our society. what you end up having is a situation in which the social compact between military and the society at large is certainly much better in this day and age and it was during your time in vietnam and the aftermath of vietnam. as a result, our country has matured as a society.

we understand that these brave men and women have done a lot of good things for our country to protect our freedoms. the fact is we need to make sure that we put the right emphasis on helping them when they need our help. they have definitely earned our hope and trust. host: according to the president, we have about 66,000 troops in february of this year. by february of 2013, -- 2014, about 13,000 are estimated to remain. guest: one caller mentioned that the vietcong were able to use equipment left behind. that is a challenge for any military. the facilities in afghanistan are pretty extensive, especially base.agram air you have that logistical challenge of getting everything out and making sure you do not

leave anything behind that is of use to the taliban. you have to go in with the planning assumption that it will be a worse case scenario -- the worst case scenario is that taliban takes over and the central government cannot withstand, the diplomatic and military pressure, that the taliban will mount against them wants american forces leave. logistical challenges will be huge. the other challenges -- the other challenge is to have to cope with the relationship based on mutual respect between afghan forces and u.s. forces. that is a difficult thing to do with the rotation template we have and the fact that you have a very clear goal of drawing down our forces, basically cutting them in half over the next 12 months and going from there to cut them even further. that is going to be the significant challenge. the more we leave, the less they trust us. that in it of itself is worth

several battalions of mechanized infantry, as they used to say, and that will be a huge issue going forward in our ability to project our power and our ability to influence decisions. host: the department of defense goings on in capitol hill -- this is on february 15, a saying that a lack of an appropriations bill with sequestration could delay redeployment in afghanistan people -- afghanistan. guest: it will have a significant impact on our ability to draw down, but it will also have a significant impact on military readiness, training, and on the ability of the units in the field to stay focused on their mission. one of the problems is that as we draw down, the mission becomes less focused. it is a very difficult thing for us to convey to the troops what

they need to do in order to keep safe and what they need to do in order to make sure that the afghans can take the lead in this next phase of the war. host: ben from ohio. to be served in afghanistan? guest: yes sir, i was in afghanistan in 2012. i am an army reserve officer, medical, and my unit was the first support unit from the hospital to establish operations in afghanistan out of the reserve component. i was listening to the kernel. thank you for your service, sir. -- the colonel. thank you for your service, sir. i think your point about the literacy rate in afghanistan is so crucial and so keyed to what we need to do as a follow-up and

avoid the mistakes we made when we assisted the group's overthrowing the soviet raging in afghanistan. we did not go in with the civil war educational support to bring civil or ed -- ucational support to bring the country up to the government we want to lead. in kosovo, much of the government was going out, teaching, nurses, other health care professionals -- this is how you take care of people. this is how you do your mission and your job medical. again, at a conference, 18 adult

does brought that up. as we are withdrawing from our hospitals, the taliban is coming in and saying, the americans are going, we'll take care of you. guest: thank you for your service in both of those conflicts. you're absolutely making correct points. the medical profession has unique role to play in making sure that a country of whatever type is ready to go to the next step socially, economically, and from a government perspective. when you do the kind of things that you're doing, the point of contact, similar to what some of the peace corps elements did, it becomes a very important part of the hand extended by the u.s. to other country. allows each of those countries to move forward. in afghanistan, there were certain areas that made a huge difference for that local area. with the taliban moving in, with them taking care of people, they

will be taking care of them with 12th century medicine. that will not have the same effect as what u.s. and nato folks were able to do when it came to putting medical care at the forefront for a population that needed it and did not have it before. host: our last call, christina, from michigan. caller: thank you very much. i hope i can organize my thoughts. i flew to phoenix to visit my brother and i sat and talked with a military man who had just retired. i wanted him to explain to me our tactics and how we started all this stuff in afghanistan, because i have a mind of a non- military person. we talk about president obama -- nobody even knew who he was when we started. i cannot understand way back then why we talked about bunker busters, why we announced we

were going in, we hung back, we did not go into court or -- tora bora. we telegraphed all of our actions. we dumbed down the ability of our people to escape. what did we do? returned to iraq -- we turned to iraq. i knew iran would rise. host: to you have a question or comment? caller: do you think talking about the axis of evil, iraq, iran, north korea, the thing that set up north korea and iran to do something because we telegraphed we were going after them?

guest: i think the comment george baldy bush made it was an attempt to describe what these nations are doing. is a fact that the taliban have relationships with elements in afghanistan, with al qaeda that resulted in great harm to the united states. on the other side of it, you have iran which has always had influence in parts of afghanistan. there are linguistic similarities. there are other issues that served as a common bond between those two countries. a similar thing in iraq -- you have a lot of elements with similar religious beliefs, the shia sect of islam. the iranians took advantage of what the u.s. was doing in iraq, when it came to operation of iraqi freedom. that was a major mistake in the standpoint of u.s. tactics and strategy. we should have gone in there and looked at exactly how the iranians were going to operate.

i knew when i was deployed in support iraqi freedom, it was clear to me that iranians were taking advantage of what we had done and were going to leverage that to their advantage. those are the things we need to look at. in terms of tora bora, i believe you're correct that we should have gone in in a more aggressive posture to really keep the al qaeda elements from entering pakistan from afghanistan. tora bora would have been a one potential place to do that. that kind of an operation should have taken care of a lot of the elements that osama bin laden was in charge of at that time triple -- time. host: the colonel served from 2005-2009. coming up, we will talk about the state of the union. the president announced

proposals this week to deal with college students and preschool students. we will speak to alyson klein about those pictures our next guest -- about those. then a representative from the ftc. [video clip] >> cuts to the military will be the most severe. that will require the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of civilian employees, not to mention military operations and maintenance. also, these cuts will affect every agency, every operation of the government, except social security, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps. those are exempt. every other agency and program

will receive some sort of cut, probably 5%. since we are well into the fiscal year, the balance of the year, these few months, we will see these cuts have a greater impact than five% for the year, since we are only talking about several months -- 5% for the year, since we are only talking about several months. >> not every account at an agency is important. if i was the agriculture secretary, i might be worried about meat inspections, rather than a boll weevil research. they do not have the responsibility to do anything about that. do you think flexibility might help? to think they want that flexibility? >> they want help in any way they can get the president does

have some flexibility in how the cuts are administered. not a great deal, but some. i am trying to write into the continuing resolution, that takes place at roughly the same time as sequester, the authority for the administration to request reprogramming, taking money from one account to another, with the approval of congress -- the approval of congress. that would be some help. >> "washington journal" continues. talk this week, we'll about educational proposals president obama introduced. alyson klein is our guest. in terms of what he laid out in the speech, it seems he went beyond k-12, and then after.

can you give us a broad sense of his proposals? guest: president obama said he wants the united states to have the highest number of college graduates by 2020. he said in the state of the union, he made it clear that he believes it begins at the preschool level and it moves all the way for colleges and career. host: in the previous term, k-12 was his main focus. is there any reason he changed his focus? guest: is partly because of the elementary and secondary education act reauthorization has been solved. he needs to get vehicles that he thinks could be moving. host: let's take a look at what the president talked about, specifically his thoughts and proposals on preschool. here is what he had to say.

[video clip] >> i propose working with states to make high-quality and affordable preschool available to every single child in america. that is something we should be able to do. [applause] every dollar we invest in high- quality early childhood education can save more than $7 later on. by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crimes. in states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like georgia or oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate school, all the job, form stable families of their own.

we know this works. lets do what works, and make sure that none of our children starts the race of light -- race of life we behind. host: go little bit further as far as specifically the focus on pre-k. what does he want to see. guest: a number of studies have shown that investing in preschool pay dividends later in life. they are less likely to have a teen pregnancies, they are more likely to graduate high school, have a successful career. president obama thinks this is the right area for us to be investing in. he wants to partner with states to help them expand their preschool programs, particularly for four-year-olds. it looks like he will provide some federal matching funds, that appears to be his proposal, although we are waiting for

details, in order to help states expand their offerings. host: are there concerns about costs? guest: yes. there is a similar proposal presented by the center for american progress, which some people think of president obama 's think tank. that proposal would cost $100 billion over 10 years. that is not a small amount of money, considering congress is trying to make cuts. president obama, when he put out the proposal, did not attach any dollars to any aspect of it. nobody knows exactly what it will cost yet. we will not know that until the budget comes out. host: what are the differences between what he is proposing and current efforts of the u.s. government makes for preschool education? guest: we will have a better idea when we see the budget the differences between this new proposal and existing efforts like head start program. from what i can tell by looking at a broad details that have

been put out, right now, had a start, which is a preschool program for low income of children, the money flows mostly to centers. this new proposal would give states the responsibility to set programs for four-year-olds. host: we will talk about education the president layout this week with our guest, alyson klein. calls on the lines that best represent you -- you could also make a comment or question on twitter @cspanwj. something called the college scorecard program -- what is that? guest: that has come to fruition. that is something president obama proposed in his last state of the union.

it did not require congressional action. this was something the administration could do on its own. it is an online tool that helps students and parents compare different colleges in terms of things like graduation rates, how likely it is you'll payback your loans -- it is a new way to bring some thought to the college selection process. students would find out how likely they would be to graduate in four years, how likely they would be to repay their loans, and that sort of thing, so they can decide whether the investment is worth it. host: this tool will determine the quality of the college of their thinking about? guest: there is no rating. it gives you an average of how it compares to similar institutions. host: is there an indication from colleges how they responded to this?

if i am the head of a college, should i be concerned about my rating on the scorecard? guest: i think some colleges welcome the transparency. host: a couple proposals we will talk about -- it specifically looks towards high-tech education. also the fix it first program to improve infrastructure. on the republican line from ohio, good morning. this is joshua. caller: you said you had studies that showed this has benefits. the only studies i have seen is that by third grade, the gap has closed. they're pretty much on the same standard. host: your question is? what are you asking?

caller: what studies? guest: the most famous is out of michigan, which followed a little over 103 and four-year- olds, for decades, to see how high-quality preschool impacted their lives. the caller is right. there are a number of studies that show that the investment -- referring to the headstart program -- has dissipated by third grade. however, some economists have said that even though students may not stay in the same academic class, partly because of problems at k-12 schools, the master soft skills. they're better at collaborating, working together -- there is another benefit that is not seen in test scores. host: ralph from nevada, on our independent line. caller: as a fiscal independent,

we do not have any more money for new programs, education or otherwise. let's take all of our bills first. host: is the reaction from congress along those fronts? guest: we do not know the price tag. it could be duplicative with other programs like head start and the community development block grants which offer grants for states to help expand child care. host: peter from utah, on the republican line. caller: hello. i see a real need to have parent programs that train them how to integrate the training of their children with this program. there are programs that can help the kids accelerate their reading abilities. i also think we should not just

concentrate on college preparation but technical trades. we should have an association with junior colleges and technical colleges and business to integrate a path for them to go forward. guest: that is actually part of the president's proposal. he wants to create a competitive grant program for high schools to help them revamp and redesign their curriculum to make it more relevant for what students need to know in the workplace. it sounds like the caller is thinking along those lines. host: what would the program do? guest: we would find out more about -- we will find out more about that in the budget. it seems he wants to grow models we have run the country. he mentioned a school in brooklyn that partners with ibm

and the city university of new york -- students and their graduate with an associate's degree in engineering. he wants to prepare students more directly for the work force. host: how the proposals he laid out compared to previous proposals that either he or arne duncan have made on stem subjects? is this an expansion of those proposals? guest: i think it is an expansion. the president laid out a proposal last year or revamping technical programs. -- for revamping technical programs. he wanted to give states much more control over what kind of technical education programs that are funded. that way, they can align the programs with industries that are booming in the state.

he also wanted to have secondary institutions and i schools and businesses cher partner grants, instead of giving separate grants to each entity. that would have more alignment long program scripps -- program. caller: i am a teacher at the middle school level, seventh grade math, and my comment and question goes back to the preschool issue. i believe the reason that the games -- the gains that studies have shown that lost by third grade, it is to have them to get exposure to things that probably years ago, more children were just exposed to across the board

before they entered school, but by the time you get to the instructional curriculum and everything in the first, second, and third grade, it is not that they would have been exposed to greater knowledge that would help them then. as a middle school teacher, what we have noticed, those of us who have been doing it for a long time, is that when things changed 10-12 years ago, and elementary schools stopped focusing on reading, writing, and a basic math skills, but now became accountable for some pretty advanced science and history curricula -- and that is being tested -- the day in middle school -- they in middle

school coming to me -- they in middle school are coming week in their basic math, reading, and riding school so that we're doing a lot of remediation. what i am not seeing in anything from the state or federal government is an idea that perhaps we have broadened the curriculum too much at the k-five level -- k-5 level, with the idea of preparing everybody for college. we're not grounding the students for what the need for a college tasked, which they would be pursuing in high-school, or more vocational task, which i think we need also to offer to people. host: can i ask you your thoughts on universal preschool or universal kindergarten and how that fits in from your experience, especially dealing

with those who have dealt with preschool programs already? caller: i think it is very important that all children have the opportunity to be exposed to as broad a range of experiences that are corporate for their age level as possible. unfortunately, that is less provided before they reach education. host: we appreciate your perspective. guest: is interesting that she said that students should be exposed to range of services before they enter school. part of the proposal we have not discussed is that president obama wants to expand home visiting services for babies and toddlers to help their parents do better job. that could involve more money, which could be a controversial view.

right now, the federal government funds some home visiting services, at the level of $1.5 billion. this would add to that. host: houston, texas, the judy on the independent line. caller: back in the 1960's, i was involved in an educational program that was experimental where in -- where university professors were brought in. we did not know that these were college courses, but in fact, we passed these courses without any issues at all. we were told by these professors that the mind of a child was like a sponge. i cannot believe we are having all these issues. i believe memorization and idealization are to go down falls -- are two downfalls that

strap children into mindsets where they become agitated and militant sometimes in the educational settings. i hope this could be confirmed in a study in 2013. i would like to know what you think about that. guest: it sounds like the caller's question is about student behavior and how to insure -- ensure our kids are on track. according to the president and people that support the idea of more preschool for children, preschool can help students form much more quickly, and learn how to get along with their peers. it sounds like this proposal could address some of the things the caller was talking about. host: one of the major economic proposals he is talked about is a race to the top.

how does that performing? guest: many states that received the race to the top grant, including maryland and georgia, are actually behind on some things they promised. other states, like north carolina, are on track. host: can you explain what it is? guest: race to the top was a competitive grant program that offers $4 billion in grants to states run the country. there were one dozen winners. this was all to redesign their k-12 educational system, put in new metrics for measuring quality, turnaround lowest performing schools, revamp their data systems, and bring in new standards and assessments. almost every state competed for these funds. many changed the laws in order to get the money. host: you said some are behind. guest: the district of colombia

is behind in turnaround of its lowest performing schools. so far, there were 10 schools that their response to concentrate on it. only one of them is actually on track. in maryland, they are behind on some other systems for teachers. that is the teacher evaluation system triple -- system. there are a series of reports and how they are using money -- it is interesting that some states are behind. host: from florida, on the republican line, we have mike. caller: good morning. i served two years in iraq, once in 2003, and once in 2009, and i did a couple years of active service in between. i had a lot of difficulty finding a job when i came back.

i had straight a's in high school and middle school. the concept was that you work your butt off and eat it -- and it would pay off later on. i now have a job making $13 per hour. it is disconcerting. it does not seem like it is very rewarding. here i am in debt for college, and i feel like i'm behind. host: what are you carrying? first caller: when i first graduated, it was about $50,000. nobody was getting aviation degrees. it is partly my fault. a degree is a degree. you should be able to get something outside of $13 an

hour. it is very disconcerting. host: did you get help from the g.i. bill? caller: i did and i'm very grateful for it. it was my choice, i wanted to get the best education i could get. host: about $50,000 as far as loans. how much do have to pay per month? caller: i have the deferred right now luckily, but i am tabling about $200 a month for that, $300. -- paying about $200 a month for that, $300. if i want to buy a house, i just turned 30, and i do not feel comfortable with that with my current employment. i went through headhunters' when i came back, trying to find a better position to gain some professional growth. once you had experience, and a

specific degree, and i have a minor in business -- and made good grades. i do not understand it. host: he spoke of his postgraduate degree and his current job opportunities. what does it say that the proposals the president is currently working on when it comes to somebody who just graduated from college? guest: it is a great point. a lot of students are saddled with debt. the average is $20,000 for somebody graduating from an undergraduate degree. the federal government clearly has only a limited amount of things to do to limit the debt load. president obama has tried to invest in pell grants, which help low-income students for college, but that program is on shaky financial footing as more students the back-to-school during a recession. college that is something -- debt is something on the minds of the president and democrats

and republicans. what president obama wanted to do with the scorecard was help people have more information when they make their college choice, whether or not students that graduate from that school are typically able to repay their loans. i do not know specifically about -- the school but the caller talked about. if this college scorecard existed before he enrolled, he may have been able to figure out whether he would be able to repay his loans. georgia is for the president was on thursday where he laid out educational proposals. this one going to the idea of what he wanted to do it for the college scorecard. [video clip] >> we are releasing a college scorecard that gives parents and students all the information they need to evaluate school by value and affordability so they can make the best choice. any

guest: the president has had a tough time getting things through congress. host: the college scorecard is located on the white house website if you want to check out yourself. we'll show you the front page and what you want to look out for. christina from virginia, on the democrats' line.

caller: my main thought was about what president obama said about kids in preschool. this is very important for parents. education for kids at the age of four and five -- my son, i went to the school for him to start preschool, and they told me that they will only consider a disabled kidd, a special needs kidd -- they do not have preschool for my son.

taxpayers were given a choice in canada to either put their money to the church schools or to the state school. you have the choice. host: do you mean vouchers? caller: yes. when children got to school, when the students got to high school, they could either go into a technical school, trade schools, or do college studies. guest: it sounds like the caller was asking whether some of the money could go to religious institutions. it is unclear actually right now whether those would be eligible partners. all the white house has said so far is school districts would be eligible for these funds. it is unclear whether that would

mean religious schools as well. host: what about organizations that already provide these types of services? guest: the white house needs to sharpen point of this proposal. host: from new jersey, on our republican line. guest: i am calling in in reference to an administrator -- as an administrator in a technical program. i wonder why that is in french -- disenfranchisement of technical programs, whether it is lack of college credit, or carpentry or technical programs, or air conditioning, and the parent says, what is a technical school program? they are looking for college credit, where these apprentice chip programs -- apprenticeship

programs demand a high line of education. the line of demarcation between college and non-college needs a bump. guest: the president has proposed making career technical programs more academically rigorous, more career-driven. the president is trying to give these programs a boost so they can prepare students for higher education. host: 1 more proposal from the president -- the fix it first program. guest: it sounds like it may be more about transportation. there was a line in the speech about modernizing schools, but if you look at the details, i did not see anything in the fix it first program that

specifically related to schools. he did talk about american jobs act, which he has proposed for a couple of years. that does include a school modernization component. so far, congress has not taken him up on that. school modernization would be retrofitted in schools to make them more energy efficient, upgrading technology, upgrading the building. host: this is don from florida on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i am don. i was born and raised in milwaukee, wisconsin, and born in 1928. i would like to address a question to your guest today about the principal problem, at both the preschool, high- school, and college level. if we understand our founding fathers, they established that

education was a very important principle. as a result, the educational system established in the united states was funded at the local level through property funding t into institutions of higher learning to help subsidize and train the people who graduated

from high school. host: my question is, does the speaker, who is a record -- who is a writer for an editorial magazine, believed that the source of funding that is coming to the federal government by the very nature of it, which is moved to washington through the income tax code, and then be redistributed out of washington to preschools and i schools -- there are not funds. why cannot these funds be moved back to the source, the principles, what is required of the states of america, the 50 states, and to the local level? guest: it sounds like the caller was talking about the federal

role in education. there is a robust debate going on in congress about that. there has been a push among the tea party conservatives to either considerably scaled-back or get rid of the federal department of education. some folks do this as a state and local issue and see it as not something the federal government should be looking at. host: about $70 billion in discretionary funding available for the education department. that is about 2.5% from 2012. from twitter -- dennis, from lake worth, florida. guest: i wish you had this discussion going on for 24 hours for a week. i guess you cannot do that. a couple of quick points -- i am in favor of parental choice in education. i do not need to make any

pejorative remarks. this is a fact -- government schools are socialistic because there is no god, they are owned and operated by the government, it is totally wrong. the supreme court said that parental choice is totally constitutional as long as tresses are given to a parent and not an instiution. -- institution. i cannot understand why it was supposed be the most christian nation in the world says we will turn our children over to an atheistic government to educate our kids. this is insanity. what is the next step? taking children away from their mothers after they give birth? host: is for your sold too early to start an education process? -- four year olds to early to

start an education process? guest: it probably depends on the four-year-old. the proposal would have them -- there would be some standards attached to it were states would have to ensure that their teachers are trained and paid similarly to k-12 teachers. i'm getting to program quality. host: one more call. caller: a comment on what you just said -- i do not think cropp -- i do not think four years old is too old. i have three kids. my concerns are that my kids spend anywhere from two or three hours doing homework because the schools, to get to the top, they want to get more funding -- the teachers are so overloaded, they

need more time doing work after hours that they're threatening to leave educate -- the education system altogether. is there an evaluation program for retention of teachers? guest: that is something i have heard teachers talk about over -- all the time, that they're overworked, that all the accountability measures have changed the profession for them, and they do not feel like they can spend on the time the need to teach kids to be creative thinkers. on the other hand, you have folks that's a the accountability in no child left behind really helps schools, and sure that all children are learning, and be accountable to the federal government for money they are getting. host: what is the likelihood that the president's proposals will see some action? guest: i would say unlikely. first of all, you never go broke in washington putting on an action. -- betting on inaction.

right now, the congress is concerned with how they will head off these automatic spending cuts, sequestration. they're not starting to think about new programs. i think it faces an uphill political battle. i think the final price tag, which we have not seen, will give us a good indication of whether or not it is viable. host: alyson klein, a staffwriter at edweek.org. coming up, we will talk about a federal trade commission saying that some inaccurate credit rating reports caused some subprime mortgages. we will speak to robert shinseki -->> we decided that se

presidents have to be treated as bald eagles, special citizens. you have a smoothing over of the rough edges. there is a feeling among modern presidents that they have a right to a certain veneration. that federation will be located in their presidential library. even if they are gone, their children, in some cases, and their former allies, their lieutenants -- they are even

more ferociously committed to legacy. what does the government do when you have of what president? cuts in part two of a conversation with timothy nattali, he will speak about challenges of running the first presidential library of president richard nixon. "washington journal" continues. host: bob schoshinski is joining us of the ftc. credit ratings agency -- credit rating agencies, the first of their kind -- what is that? guest: this is a report by that imposed certain

responsibilities for certain credit reporting agencies. for instance, the credit reporting act requires credit reporting agencies to have procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information the report. it gives consumers the right to check their credit report and point out any inaccuracies that are in them and dispute them with the credit reporting agencies. it requires the agency's to investigate those disputes. in 2003 when congress amended the act, they said to the ftc, who is one of the agencies that enforces the act, we would like to see a report on the accuracy of credit reports. over the course of 10 years, the commission has engaged in this study to look at credit reports and determine the accuracy. it is unique because it follows the process all the way -- all

the way through, from the consumer looking at the credit report, to the consumer identify potential inaccuracies, and then disputing them. the credit reporting agencies, determining whether they will change those, and whether those changes have an effect on consumers' credit score. host: ultimately, if i have a certain number, it impacts what kind of loans and rates again. guest: -- i get. guest: there are so many things that depend on your credit score. it is not just about your credit report but the price to pay. host: attention, as far as credit reports are concerned-can you expand on that?

guest: whether there were accuracies or inaccuracies. if there were, it would dispute those inaccuracies with the credit reporting agency. the credit reporting agency would decide if there were going to take those items off or change them. if they did, the study reran the scores to see if there was a change in the scores. what the study found was that 26% of consumers attend but of least one error by at least one of their credit reports. the 1% after going through the dispute process have the credit reporting agency change item-21% after going through the dispute process have the credit reporting agency change an item. and move them from perhaps one tier to another, where the wood

of gotten a better interest-rate on alone such as a car loan--- where they would have gotten a better interest-rate on a loan such as a car loan. host: our guest will be with us for the remainder of our time to talk about the report, what was found. questions about you and your credit report. if you have questions for him, you're the numbers you can call. if the also tweed us--- you can also tweet us. how do the mistakes happened? guest: they gather from a number

of sources. it could be a bank loan. it could be a bankruptcy, other item. the inaccuracies could come from the companies are reporting this information. it could come from the credit reporting agencies themselves. or could come from id that. --- theft. those could be reflected on your credit report. it is important to know or identify those items of my not a long tube-might not -- might not belong to you. host: does the ftc show mistakes made in the credit rating agencies themselves? guest: we know from complaints that sometimes it is the

furniture, the company providing the information to the creek reporting agency, but sometimes it is a credit reporting agency that is making a mistake. host: what has been the reaction from the credit rating agencies? guest: they have responded pretty positively. from what i have read and seen, the credit reporting industry, is an important study that provides as good information. i think they have emphasized some of the numbers that show that things are going well. i think that is reasonable. they have responded well to the report and have a knowledge that it is helpful to them. host: 1 reaction, the ftc---

guest: there emphasizing the items in the report that are favorable. that is reasonable. host: our first call is from clearwater, kansas on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have a question of one of the three credit reporting bureaus. i am unsure if i am allowed to mention the names. one of them has a financial

services division, acting as a title company and going between lenders. would that be of any concern of special favoritism between the credit reporting bureau itself and the financial subsidiary or department that they have? guest: place for your question. i do not know if that would be a concern as far as conflict of interest, but it would be a concern in this regard. in the financial-services arm of the credit reporting agency is reporting information about transactions that have with consumers, they have additional obligations. credit reporting agencies have obligations under the fair credit reporting act. -- another arm, the have additional obligations.

that would be the main interesting issue arriving from the credit reporting agency. the three main ones are experienced, equifax and,--- experion, equifax, and trans union. these are wide ranging credit reports that so many creditors used to determine credit worthiness of consumers. host: is it generally a practice that if i am checking with all three, the numbers are consistent? guest: the credit scores can be different. different critter reporting agencies will take different factors into account when coming up with your score. there could be ranges between the different credit reporting agencies. host: a tweet,

guest: the corrections should propagate it was reported to all three credit reporting agencies. if you disputed item, said that a bank is reporting to one of the crown reporting agencies and a credit reporting agency determines to corrected, the law requires the bank to report that correction out to all credit reporting agencies to whom they have provided that information. host: a colorado democrat line --- a caller on our democratic line. caller: one woman went to get a score credit card because she wanted to get a discount on some items. they denied her. she requested copies of her

credit reports, and everything came back no problem. everything was clear. it took three years. finally she found out that some banker left her file in his office and walked away. she was able to see that the once the bank sees are not the one one that you as a citizen see when you request them. she found some other woman, her debt was on this woman's credit report. and then when you try to call a and make a change, they don't listen to you. they don't change anything. you talk to somebody overseas. it was horrifying. people should watch the report on "60 minutes." guest: if a creditor denies you credit or give you a worse

credit, then they would give to the general public, they are required by the law to disclose the information. in a case where the credit report to the consumer is being provided is different from the one they used to determine not to give consumer credit, that is a violation of the law. the credit reporting agencies and the companies that provide information for them have a responsibility to complete investigations of disputes. if they're not investigating a dispute that a consumer has brought and documented, that could be a violation of the law. host: 8 wheat,--- a tweet -- guest: it is usually the

creditors and other individuals who want reports to make determinations whether to give credit or not. their interest is to give their clients information to use indetermination of credit and other determinations such as employment, rental, or insurance. host: so the clients could be department stores or another credit card company? guest: they could be all of those. the big three credit reporting agencies, the nationwide credit reporting agencies generally provide credit reports to all sorts of lenders. but there are smaller credit reporting agencies that specialize in certain lines, so they could be check authorization companies. they could specialize in auto loans. host: from the ftc study, what they found when it came to credit rating agencies,

approximately 5% of credit reports have significant errors. errors could affect your loan terms. consumers should check reports before applying for major purchases such as mortgages and auto loans. how easy is it to buy a mistake on a credit report? --- find a mistake on the carter report? -- credit report? guest: you can get your credit report from one of the three major credit reporting agencies for free. you could get your credit report for free once a year. their imitators that have websites the sound similar that may try to sell you services related to credit reporting. this is the one website,

annualcreditreport.com. once you get it, it can be a daunting document. when you get it, you want to make sure that you go through it carefully and make sure that the items that are in it are actually items that are either loans you took out or items related to you and not items and are being reported from someone else. host: will list, here are the credit cards that i own? or do you have to investigate? guest: it will relatively clearly set out the credit cards and loans you have. if there are bankruptcies or other information reported, that will be set out. it is relatively easy to understand. host: does the free report provide a number for you? guest: it does not. it does not require them to give

you the credit score. many of them will sell it to you for a fee. host: a call from florida on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i have a question about the responsibility that falls on the consumer to disprove these disputes. in my case, it came up during a security clearance review that there was something on my account by a financial institution that said i had responsibility for to dispute this. they checked with the financial institution and said it was valid. it took me the time and effort to contact the financial institution to have them produce documents which they could not produce. they finally took it off. all responsibility falls upon myself. host: could you talk about the

length of time it took to resolve this? caller: it took about six months. for the clearance part, i was able to prove this was something from my ex-wife. the institution should have produced the documents for myself to show what i was the actual killing a party. -- delinquent party. guest: the law requires the for measures to investigate disputes that you as a consumer notify them -- furniture's -- furnishers to investigate disputes the you as a consumer notify them of. that is a requirement that the credit reporting agencies and underlying companies have. i think your point is good, a

lot of this is putting responsibility on the consumer to review the credit report a dispute the item. having said that, we still advise people to go through that process. that is the only way they're going to insure that these items are taken seriously and the credit reporting agencies and the underlying banks are notified that you dispute this item. in a lot of cases, it is worth the time and effort even though it is frustrating. host: a viewer asks what errors result vie in credit upgrades versus downgrades? guest: if information, positive information is reported incorrectly, that can increase its corporate an important number -- positive number.

host: does the ftc oversee or have oversight over the credit rating agencies? guest: it has enforcement authority for much of the credit reporting agencies. the consumer financial protection bureau has additional powers related to the major credit reporting agencies. one of the powers that have is supervision. they can go in, go under the hood, book in the procedures to make sure they're doing things in compliance with the law. they have rulemaking authority for the major credit reporting agency. host: a caller on our republican line. caller: in august, i transferred my funds from and are right --

from an ira to an ira-dc. a ticket to the people who did my taxes. -- i took it to the people who did my taxes. they said i needed a different form. i have been fighting this for a month with these people. still have not gotten buthe g- form. economic -- i cannot do my taxes until i get this. i went to my bank manager. he called them up and call me back and said it will have it in seven to 10 days. is there any recourse i got it gets this bank? -- against this bank? they can really screw up.

guest: the ftc does not have authority over banks. but there are banking regulators who you should contact if there is an issue where your tried to correct this kind of information in your bank -- in your bag is not complying. we do not have authority -- and your bank is not complying. host: a caller on our democratic line. caller: i have a question about credit reporting. last year i was in a major accident. i ended up occurring quite a bit of medical bills.

what i found is they immediately reported to a credit agency. i called back and enquired and they told me they are not in the business of collecting money, they would rather have it off to a third party. it affects your credit report. i had almost flawless credit before. within a year, and went from 8784 down to a 530. -- 874 to a 530. how does it work? guest: the fair credit reporting act does not treat medical bills different from any other kind of bills. there have been proposals in

congress to treat medical that differently -- that differently than other debt for the purposes of credit reporting. the medical bills are going to be reported the same. these can be devastating to consumers. host: what are the range of numbers that these credit rating agencies deal with and what constitutes good and bad? guest: i do not have those numbers. host: a caller on our independent line. caller: we are now living in a very bad economy. we have many people who have lost their jobs, lost their homes. what is the total bad credit report of the people in this country?

our government has a ton of debt. it to apply for credit and you have too much debt, you can get turned down. why is it that we have a government that is in trillions of dollars of debt but yet they can continue to borrow money? why is it that this government does not take into consideration people who lost their homes, lost their jobs? if you lose your job, you can get credit but they're going to charge you 7% or 80%. sometimes i think the whole credit system is a scam -- 17% or 18%. sometimes i think the whole credit system is a scam. guest: where your credit rating is and what is being reported in your credit report can have a major impact.

i think that goes to the importance of checking your credit reports regarding the debt and government -- reports. regarding the debt and government, that is a good point. host: 8 wheat -- a tweet -- guest: that is a misunderstanding. under the law, the fact that a department store or other creditor has checked an application for a credit card or other line of credit should not affect your credit negatively unless they give you the credit. the credit reporting agency may take into account if you have a number of credit cards in terms of determining what kind of credit they're going to extend to you. if you check your credit report,

it should not have an effect on your credit rating. that should not have a negative impact on your credit rating. the law requires these three checks of your credit and should not have a negative impact. host: it is only a few opening line of credit they your score will be affected? guest: correct. caller: i am calling about blatant conflict of interest that i see. these very same agencies sell services to protect your credit rating. it seems to me that is a blatant conflict of interest. guest: that is a good point. any offer for protection services you should take with a grain of salt and determine what the interest of the company that is offering it to you is.

just because you are checking your credit with a credit reporting agency does not mean that you need to get a credit protection services. sometimes it will try to sell you something else. host: you talk about numbers in the report. what else was found that i'd be of interest to viewers? -- was found that would be of interest to viewers -? guest: 10% of all participants in the study had a correction in their credit reports that move their credit score in one direction or another. we talk about the 5% of people who actually have their credit score go down by a significant amount, 10% of participants had some change in its corporate that indicates it is worthwhile to look -- their score.

it indicates it is worthwhile to look. it could move your score. host: annualcreditreport.com is where you can go for your free credit report. how often can you get one? guest: every 12 months. some cable advise staggering your requests for each of those. -- people advise staggering your requests for each of those. if there is any items that come up, inaccuracies the, over time, that we will catch them as they come up. host: i remember, -- a call on our democrats line.

caller: and want to comment on this credit report. about a year ago i tried to get my interest lowered on my car loan. i was told yes, because i had been doing business with these people for 20 years. and the gentleman came back and said, they have you deceased on your credit report. i said, what? it took me four months to correct that. she had to notify all three agencies. people ought to be very careful. this was a very big mistake on my part. host: how long did it take you to get that fixed? caller: almost four months.

if i had not had a person writing letters for me from the bank, i do not know how long it would have taken if i had tried to do it myself. people should be very much aware of what can happen. no fault of your own. all the sudden you find out. i did try to find out about this interest rate. i would still be deceased. i do not usually do anything about this. i live by myself. i tried to do the best i can with my expenses. if they don't have it that way, that is too bad. that is the biggest mistake i've ever had to encounter in my life. and fight for the right of being alive. guest: her experience provides a good example of how major these errors can be. it is not just always about a

missed payment or late payment. if a credit report indicates a your deceased, that can really have a big impact on your ability to get credit. it took awhile to correct it, and she needed help to do it. it is important to know that these things are out there and build the need to correct them, so that when you go to apply for credit are tried to get an apartment or a job, there is not out there a report that will stop you. guest: usually this comes to people's attention because of a wake-up call? a lot of people do not think about their credit reports. the importance of this study is to make people aware that these issues are out there and they can really affect them. if your pro-active and take steps to check their credit and determine whether there are inaccuracies, it can really help them going forward. host: the caller on our line for independents.

caller: sanders? the report says that the credit report the you get from these agencies when you request a copy is different from the ones they send to potential predators. how are they different? guest: potential creditors may ask for specific information. the credit report that you get when you get your free credit report is a general report that should cover all the information that the credit reporting agency has in your file. it does not cover the credit's core, but it should cover all the information that is in your credit report. host: a caller on our republican line. guest: you mentioned laws and parameters that have to follow. what is the recourse when they don't? it should not take six months or year to fix a credit problem.

it is not our responsibility to do their job. they're being paid to report accurate reports. when they don't do that, what is our recourse? what is our compensation for their mistake? i was doing to the cell phone company the other day. i want to get out of my contract. costs me $200. they're not providing the working service. if i get out of my contract, they're going to charge me $200. if they're not providing their end of the contract, why shouldn't i be compensated? i have to hire an attorney. we have all these rules and all these laws. the consumer is the guy who has to pay. it seems like there isn't enough regulation of big companies. we pay them to a job, and they don't do it, so that we should have to pay more. guest: that is a really good point. when you have experiences like to have talked about when you're

trying to correct something and cannot get it done after taking reasonable efforts, the commission and other agencies to deal with credit reporting agencies want to hear about your experiences. we want you to contact us with complaints. you could do that for the ftc at ftc.gov. 1877-ftc-help. register complaints. that is how the ftc and other agencies know what is going on. host: here is the web site for annualcreditreport.com. the first line here is about fighting a detect. is this a common reason why people have bad credit --

identity theft. is this a common reason why people have bad credit? guest: unfortunately, it is too common. it is a reason that people have bad credit. it is a common problem that consumers should be worried about. host: a caller on are democrats lines. caller: all my days and of never worried about a number of a credit report. i have never had a personal loan. i've never had a credit card. one had one mortgage loan this old house i live in, bought on a va loan. 15 years ago. at that point, and had to have a critter poured cold, and after paying cash -- credit report,

and after paying cash, was told that at credit is a better than no credit. i have always paid cash for everything. the lasting about a few years back was a very expensive oceangoing boats. i saved up. i had over $150,000 paid. now i am the proud owner of this nice big boat. i still sorry for people that play with the credit cards. i feel sorry for people who play with the banks. today. -- have a good day. economy, today's people who do not have credit can sometimes be seen as a risk

because they don't have the history to indicate to the lender and credit reporting agency that this person has gotten credit before and has paid on time. this can be a real problem for people like ted, who pay in cash and don't run up these kinds of credit lines. host: it is probably a rare case, to be honest with you. [laughter] a caller on all lines for independents. -- are lined for independents. caller: when you have a hardship, and has been 17 years, and it continues on the record, they keep harassing you -- what do we do about something like that, when i am still trying to get myself on my feet and do better?

guest: under the fair credit reporting act, most items should not be reported for more than seven years after they have been incurred. the law requires that limit. if you're experiencing that, we would like to hear about that. the to be a violation of the law. host: final thoughts on what we have talked about this morning. the folks home, -- the folks at home can go to the web site? guest: absolutely. ftc.gov. how to get a free credit report. we want to of this size is very important that consumers be aware -- emphasize this is very important that consumers beware. the ethics for your time.

-- thanks for your time. at 8:30, larry clinton will talk about president obama's executive order and cybersecurity. we will finish the program talking about north korea's's test. all that, your phone calls and a look at the papers tomorrow starting at 7:00.

>> today, and look at the long- term fiscal health of the u.s. postal service lullaby to state of the state addresses. -- followed by two state of the state address. >> i think the women themselves in many cases were interested in politics but had no vehicle to express that in their own lives. they were attracted to men who were going to become politically active or were already politically active. >> each of them i find intriguing. probably half of them in particular, precisely because they're so obscure. half of these women probably would be at